Monday, December 19, 2005

Outline - Criminal Law - X - Group Criminality

Criminal Law (2005 Fall)


  1. Overview

    ACT = any assistance



    Intent to agree [Lauria] +

    Agreement [Interstate, Alvarez (2)] +

    Overt act (unless serious crime)

    NARROW INTENT TESTS Intent to commit substantive offense (knowledge not enough) [Hicks, Gladstone, MPC]
    Association/nexus with perpetrator [Gladstone]
    Intent to commit substantive crime [MPC]

    Knowledge of results (for serious crime)


    Reasonable, foreseeable, natural consequence of setting criminal activity into motion [Luparello, Roy]

    Pinkerton – Liable for substantive crimes committed in furtherance of conspiracy or that are reasonably foreseeable consequences
  2. Aiding and Abetting
    1. Act – Any assistance at all
    2. Intent
    3. Hicks – Defendant was present when Rowe murdered Colvard and said something to Rowe.
    4. Gladstone – Defendant drew map to marijuana dealer’s house.
    5. Fountain – Knowledge of purpose for which weapon would be used establishes liability. Purpose required for lesser crimes; knowledge enough for major crimes.
    6. Luparello – Defendant liable for “natural, probable, and foreseeable” harms in the course of other intended offense.
    7. Roy – “Natural and probable” is insufficient by itself when defendant didn’t intend to participate.

      Note: Aiding and abetting is not a separate crime.

  3. Conspiracy
    1. Elements
      1. Intent to agree [Lauria]
        1. Stake in venture/inflated charges
        2. No other legitimate use
        3. Disproportionate business
      2. Agreement
        1. Simultaneity not required [Interstate Circuit]
        2. No conspiracy for association, such as membership in gang [Garcia]
        3. Knowledge may be inferred [Alvarez (2) – Smile and promise to be there enough to infer knowledge of details of crime]
      3. Overt act (not required for serious crimes)
        1. Ohio – Act from which intent may be inferred
        2. Maine – “Substantial step”, closer to attempt
    2. Further Liability
      1. Pinkerton (minority) – Defendant in jail held liable for substantive crimes committed by brother.
      2. Bridges – Defendant in brawl at birthday party liable for murder by co-conspirator as it was within scope of conspiracy by being reasonably foreseeable.
      3. Alvarez (1) – Defendant in drug sting killing might not have been liable if the role was “minor”, reducing foreseeability.
      4. MPC (majority) – Defendants liable for further substantive crimes only when strict conditions for accomplice liability are met.
    3. Abandonment and Renunciation
      1. Common Law
        1. “Affirmative action” to announce withdrawal.
        2. Some jurisdictions also require thwarting.
        3. Liable for conspiracy, but no longer for further crimes.
      2. MPC
        1. Withdrawal requires “affirmative action” to announce withdrawal.
        2. Renunciation is an affirmative defense against all conspiracy charges and is established by successful thwarting.

No comments: